• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Jesus Invented By The Romans?

Free episodes:

I almost feel like I need to justify myself for jumping back into this little debate. but then I thought about it for a bit and decided that I don't need to justify anything. I promised myself I wouldn't get into these little religious debates based on past experiences on this very forum with certain believers, I often end up getting frustrated by their refusal to accept anything that contradicts their beliefs. This usually leads to me casting doubt on their intellectual capacity, but I've actually done a complete 180 on that and realized that their ability to rationalize almost any amount of silly mental gymnastics on behalf of their belief is not an indicator of their lack of scruples or intelligence, but a demonstration of how desperately they want to believe in something. It's exactly like people who want to believe in unproven things like spirits and ghosts, or the extraterrestrial origin of crop circles, no matter how much evidence you present that these things are merely figments of our imagination and faulty perception in the case of ghosts or the product of human beings with strings and boards in the case of crop circles, their will to believe overcomes all of that information because human beings can rationalize almost anything.

Still, I do tend to chuckle a bit when I see people anthropomorphize something like an all powerful creator of universes. If one exists it would be completely outside of our ability to understand it just by virtue of what it is, human beings have no frame of reference that can provide insight into what it would be like to be able to wield the power of creation itself, how in the world could you possibly think that you could ever understand the thoughts or motivations of something so powerful? How could you think that you could ever predict its actions or understand its intentions? The idea that a being who created us with these very real limits in our perception and intelligence would give one tiny fuck about what we believed to be true is the ultimate comedy of religion. You want to propose an all powerful overseer of the universe and all creation, but you also want him to share your own personal sense of morality and to deal out swift justice to all that oppose you, and I find that to be more consistent with our perspective as human beings, rather than any supernatural force of creation.
 
I agree with some of what you said at the top about not getting to resolution. The Bible is what it is and nothing is being added to it. Part of the problem is you are still treating it like a text book. There is no possible way that one can derive the full creation story from Genesis with the total lack of details and time scales, etc. This lack of information does not refute that God created the universe.

But, let's choose your theory -- it all happened randomly....

As I talked about before, but nobody seems to want to talk about is the evidence of intelligent design. How can you take a human cell and think of it randomly occurring? Kofahl and Segraves in "The Creation Explanation", came up with a probability of 1 in 10^(340000000) chance on random chance of the formation of just *one* enzyme molecule.

The total number of observable particles in the universe is estimated at ~10^80.
What is the number of particles in the universe
The chances of something simple like an enzyme molecule forming is millions of time less likely than randomly picking a specific single particle in the whole universe (based on these numbers).

Furthermore, there are >100 physical constants that are very fine tuned and precise. The slightest change of any of them and the universe would be very different or perhaps nonexistent. Some of the parameters: strong and week nuclear force constants, gravitational constant, charge of elementary particles, fine structure constant, decay life of protons and other particles, etc... I could go on and on. There is no way all of these can randomly have values to produce what we have in our universe - I would like to see that probability number.

There are other studies that blow these numbers away by orders of magnitude. So, whatever the magnitude of these numbers are, they are so ridiculously low, that any person would realize that random formation of the universe is zero. There is definitely intelligent design behind all of this and the best and only explanation is that a supreme, infinite, loving being, existing outside of our universe [GOD] is responsible.

Science is doing a great job of unraveling these details. In the end, whatever details we learn, the Bible will be consistent with what we learn to be as fact.

Ok, I can agree that the lack of information on creation doesn't prove that god didn't create the Earth, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he did either, now does it? Are we supposed to believe that he created the universe and yet couldn't give us a complete, consistent and coherent explanation of, not even how this was accomplished but the basic order in which it was accomplished? Really? We can't rely on this supposedly divinely inspired perfect document to even get the simple basics right, like the Earth being created before the stars even though the Earth is composed of heavy elements that come from..... the supernova explosions of stars? Really? They couldn't even get that right? If that's the case, why should we rely on this book to guide us in anything?

As for your intelligent design arguments, as usual with ID proponents you are misrepresenting the position of science right off the bat, nobody thinks that human cells just randomly occured from nothing and if you really are some kind of scientist, which the more I read from you the more I doubt, you would know that. There's no point in arguing with someone who's going to present an argument based on such a flawed understanding of their opponents position, I have better things to do than correct your faulty preconceptions. I'll let someone else handle that because I've been there, I've done that, it bores me and you couldn't be more wrong in your presentation of the position of modern science on this matter. Here's a general rebuttal to the silly intelligent design probability arguments, instead:

Responding to Intelligent Design/Creationism: The probability of Abiogenesis
Posted by RB on March 14, 2008 · 2 Comments

This is the long-delayed second edition of responding to ID/Creationism, which was inspired by the heaps of disingenuity and ignorance offered up by Frank Sherwin of the Institute for Creation Research a few weeks ago at the Christian literalist organized and slanted War of the Worldviews religion debates in Whitby, Ontario.

As will generally be the case, this evolutionist critique of an ID/C talking point comes from TalkOrigins, a highly-respected repository on evolution, intelligent design and creationism run by a number of scientists.

The ID/C claim of the day (as presented by TalkOrigins): The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113 (i.e. 10 to the 113th power), and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life.

The TalkOrigins response:

  1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
  2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
  3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
  4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Like I said, you couldn't be more wrong or more thoroughly misrepresenting the actual position of science on this matter.
 
Actually, you haven't proved anything. Once again, you have pulled a single verse completely out of context from the Bible. In addition, you picked (easily confirmed by internet searches) a section of the Bible that is under a lot of debate on if it is truly part of the gospel or not, not to mention other issues. But ignoring that, the Bible tells us many times that we are not to test God, if we do, then bad things happen. So, no true believer would say, " But we can test this...". There is also some folks who believe that this verse is referencing other acts of belief, such as Moses lifting up the serpent in the wilderness or Paul being bitten on the hand by a poisonous snake and nothing happening, etc. I have heard of people accidently drinking poison and being ok....

Actually i did prove, your claim the bible

is accurate and totally free from error of any kind; that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

Is dead wrong, since believers cannot as is claimed in the bible drink deadly poison and suffer no harrm.

Your answer ?

Context again, and now the claim the inerreant bible may contain a verse that may not "truly" be part of the gospel.

If as you now claim twisting and squirming to make yet another excuse for the bible, it shouldnt "truly" be in there, then how can it be totally free from error of any kind?

How do you explain this clear contradiction

if it is truly part of the gospel or not
Vs
totally free from error of any kind


You cant have it both ways



And this silly argument
The chances of something simple like an enzyme molecule forming is millions of time less likely than randomly picking a specific single particle in the whole universe (based on these numbers).
is easily debunked here

Improbable things happen - RationalWiki

Misuse by creationists
See the main article on this topic: argument from fine tuning
Many nut jobs creation scientists love to mention how so many of the things we observe around us have a probability of occurring of nearly zero. They love that "nearly zero" thing. They seem to believe that if the odds are low enough, then what we see couldn't have happened randomly. However, since we do observe the "whatever improbable thing", then it must have made it despite the odds.
Again, they always mention the "nearly zero" thing. Actually, they mean zero. They pretend to give the observation the however low probability that it might have, but they truly believe that it had zero probability. That is perfectly reasonable given that their solution is that the observed effect was created supernaturally.
In using probability to support their position, the creationists overlook two major points. Firstly, the prior probability of the universe forming by chance is not the same as the posterior probability of the universe forming by chance given that the universe has formed Secondly, even if there is a very low probability of an event occurring at some particular point, there is also a very low probability that that event will occur at none of the very many points in the universe (i.e., the large size of the universe implies that there is a reasonable probability of there being a "Goldilocks Zone" somewhere in it).
A hypothetical example
As an example of the fallacy of looking at results and conjecturing backwards on what the probability of such occurring was, grab a set of playing cards and deal them out face up, one at a time. When the first card is dealt, the probability of it being whatever it is, is 52-1, the probability of the second card being whatever it is is then 51-1, giving a combined probability of 2652-1. Once you have got through the deck, the probability of you having dealt those cards in that order is a staggering one in 8x1067, which is pretty much "nearly zero", yet you just managed to do it! Congratulations, you're magic - just like Jesus![2]
What is the probability of the alternative?
Let us assume that such-and-such is exceedingly improbable to have happened as a result of natural causes.
Now let's compare that with the probability that it happened as a result of more-than-natural causes. As is typical with "intelligent design" advocates, we won't make any assumptions about the limitations on the designers, their methods, materials, or motives. They are apt to do anything.
Let's keep with the example of playing cards. With unlimited and inscrutable designers, they are not restricted to using A through K of clubs, diamonds, hearts and spades. Of course, they can use as many jokers as they want, but also they could use a 17 of blue roses, a duke of green bananas, a 3.1416... of ultraviolet unicorns, or whatever. Given that range of possibilities, what is the probability that they would choose to end up with only cards from a standard deck? What is the probability that an intelligent designer of a DNA sequence would choose to use only hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and so on, rather than also using helium, plutonium, neutronium, and anti-hydrogen? If the probability (for both of these) isn't 0, it's certainly a lot less than any creationist has dreamed up about evolution.

Probability - RationalWiki
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hundreds of years of highly competent biblical scholars have read and studied the problem texts and still have found no difficulty in holding to inerrancy- this gives me more confidence.

Vs

a section of the Bible that is under a lot of debate on if it is truly part of the gospel or not, not to mention other issues. ....

You actually contradict yourself in this thread.


Now, I am not a Bible scholar.

This at least is the truth, what you are, is just another brainwashed believer, quoting the silly stuff you hear from some pulpit jockey on sunday

Tell a $cientologist that elroy hubbard was just a science fiction writer, and they have been conned....... They react the very same way.

Quoting what they have had drummed into them by pastor pulpit pounder and not thinking for themselves.

After all..........

A-free-thinker-is-satans-slave.jpg



You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.-- Carl Sagan
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New Living Translation
They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed."




Risks

Some of the leaders in these churches have been bitten numerous times, as indicated by their distorted extremities. Hensley himself, the founder of modern snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains, died from fatal snakebite in 1955.[6] In 1998, snake-handling evangelist John Wayne "Punkin" Brown died after being bitten by a timber rattlesnake at the Rock House Holiness Church in rural northeastern Alabama.[7] Members of his family contend that his death was probably due to a heart attack. However, his wife had died three years previously after being bitten while in Kentucky. Another snake handler died in 2006 at a church in Kentucky.[8] In 2012, Pentecostal pastor and snake handler Mack Wolford died from a rattlesnake bite he had received while performing an outdoor service in West Virginia, as did his father in 1983.[9]



If nothing else, proof god has a wicked sense of humour
Darwin would also be getting a giggle out of this too
 
Vs


A-free-thinker-is-satans-slave.jpg



You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.-- Carl Sagan

well i'm glad i stopped by to get a gander at this sign and this quote as they both speak to our times quite succinctly, whether your belief system is framed by crop circles, Jesus, or UFO's. the need to believe defines many as opposed the need to discover, or the willingness to be patient and critical about the evidence. free thinking has really gone out of vogue these days.

i'm wondering why in this thread there's been no real mention of C.S. Lewis who went from atheist to committed believer? he eventually decided that being an Atheist lacked imagination and that the position itself was quite boring, so dabbling in a spiritual framework somehow rewarded his well tuned brain and then he decided to do a lot more than dabble. sure you can critique his sexism, but he really was a free thinker and freely thought himself into Christianity - T.S. Eliot did the same finding solace in Catholicism after decades of non-belief. i wonder why it is that above average, intelligent people, with exceptional imaginations, decide suddenly that believing in God makes more sense than not believing in anything? Mike, do you want to field that one as you just revel in this topic and i'd be curious to get your take on that one?
 
Hundreds of years of highly competent biblical scholars have read and studied the problem texts and still have found no difficulty in holding to inerrancy- this gives me more confidence.

Again with this false notion.

There are just as many Talmudic scholars who reject the NT as utterly false

some examples

Short answer..this Jew views the New Testament as replacement theology and an attempt by the Hellenized apostate Jews and the Romans in power in Judea to do away with the Jewish religion and people. Now to the long reasons why I say this:
In a nutshell that is what I see was the purpose of the New Testament..to replace what the early church father's deemed the "old" testament or covenant, and re-define their Greco-Romanized beliefs to the population of Judea as "fulfillment" of their "old" and "inferior" ways.


And

It's not part of Judaism at all. The "NT" centers around Jesus as the foretold Jewish Messiah and Jews realized then and now that he wasn't so the NT isn't a concern to Jews. Except when demanded to think about it and justify their religion by Christians and Muslims, though.
History and research shows that the entire "trial" of Jesus was written much later by people who were not there, obviously. Anyone who has researched Jewish and Roman cultures and laws knows that there are so many errors there that it's all unbelievable.


And

A poor, hate-filled, man-made sequel to G-d's word.

And

I don't think at all about it.
Source(s):
I'm Jewish.
 
How do you explain this clear contradiction

if it is truly part of the gospel or not
Vs
totally free from error of any kind


You cant have it both ways

The inerrancy is that the Bible doesn't affirm anything that is contrary to fact. The context of that quote (whether it belongs in the Bible or not) is this (since you refuse to do this):
Read the whole passage in Mark. This occurs after the resurrection when Jesus appears to the eleven Apostles. They did not believe Mary Magdalene when she told them Jesus was alive and she saw Him. They also did not believe the two disciples who encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus. So starting with verse 14 Mark writes:
"14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they sat at table; and he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."
Notice verse 14. Jesus scolds the Apostles for not believing what was told to them. He then tells them to go into the world and promises them that certain signs will accompany those who believe. And these signs did accompany the early church from curing the sick to raising from the dead. These signs were gifts of the Holy Spirit given to some but not everyone receives these gifts and most do not receive any of these mentioned. So did these signs occur? Yes. Did all of the early believers exhibit these signs? No.
As for the probability responses by mike and maudib, nice try, but the numbers still don't compute. From a science based argument, assuming no divine intervention, the numbers are very low now matter how you look at it, for just happening one time. If one accepts this, then life on Earth is very rare indeed. The likelihood that it happens at multiple times even less unlikely (by multiplying the probabilities)...now we are talking the likelihood of low probable things happing... and so forth.
Let the evidence speak for itself. We have no proof that life exists somewhere else. We know it is here and we have a Book that tell us this and the a purpose. Life developing on its own is impossible.
 
well i'm glad i stopped by to get a gander at this sign and this quote as they both speak to our times quite succinctly, whether your belief system is framed by crop circles, Jesus, or UFO's. the need to believe defines many as opposed the need to discover, or the willingness to be patient and critical about the evidence. free thinking has really gone out of vogue these days.

i'm wondering why in this thread there's been no real mention of C.S. Lewis who went from atheist to committed believer? he eventually decided that being an Atheist lacked imagination and that the position itself was quite boring, so dabbling in a spiritual framework somehow rewarded his well tuned brain and then he decided to do a lot more than dabble. sure you can critique his sexism, but he really was a free thinker and freely thought himself into Christianity - T.S. Eliot did the same finding solace in Catholicism after decades of non-belief. i wonder why it is that above average, intelligent people, with exceptional imaginations, decide suddenly that believing in God makes more sense than not believing in anything? Mike, do you want to field that one as you just revel in this topic and i'd be curious to get your take on that one?

I can only guess, but perhaps the fear of death finally got the better of them, and they chose a comfortable delusion over the unpleasant alternative of oblivion.

And i can match you above average, intelligent people, with exceptional imaginations who hold an opposing view easily enough

Atheism Quotes, Famous

William Clifford
1. "If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it -- the life of that man is one long sin against mankind."

Albert Einstein
2. "The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."
3. "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls."
4. "The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
5. "I came-- though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents -- to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve."

Stephen Roberts
6. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Buddha
7. "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Saddi
8. "To give pleasure to a single heart by a single kind act is better than a thousand head-bowings in prayer."

William Shakespeare
9. "Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie, Which we ascribe to heaven."
10. "And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n forth of holy writ,
And seem a saint when most I play the devil."

Arthur Schopenhauer
11. "Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think."

Joseph Heller, Catch22
2. "'And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways,' Yossarian continued. 'There's nothing mysterious about it, He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about, a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of Creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatalogical mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain?'"

Mark Twain
13. "Satan hasn't a single salaried helper; the Opposition employ a million."
14. "A man is accepted into church for what he believes--and turned out for what he knows."

Bernard J. Bamberger
15. "The Bible as we have it contains elements that are scientifically incorrect or even morally repugnant. No amount of 'explaining away' can convince us that such passages are the product of Divine Wisdom."

Martin Amis
16. "Since it is no longer permissible to disparage any single faith or creed, let us start disparaging all of them. A religion is a belief system with no basis in reality whatever. Religious belief is without reason and without dignity, and its record is near-universally dreadful."

Stephen J. Gould
17. "The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."

William Blake
18. "The Vision of Christ that thou dost see,
Is my vision's greatest enemy.
Thine is the Friend of all Mankind,
Mine speaks in Parables to the blind.
Thine loves the same world that mine hates,
Thy heaven-doors are my hell gates."

Reverend Robert Cromey
19. "You can safely say that you have made God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."


H. L. Mencken
20. "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
21. "Imagine the Creator as a low comedian, and at once the world becomes explicable."

John S. Spong
22. "The God understood as a father figure, who guided ultimate personal decisions, answered our prayers, and promised rewards and punishment based upon our behavior was not designed to call anyone into maturity."

Thomas Paine
23. "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
24. "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

Hal Tritz
25. "It should not, and need not, be the purpose of a science teacher to preach atheism or even skepticism about any religious doctrine, but if such should be the result of his teaching in one, two or even a half-dozen of his students, that has nothing to do with his purposes. His purpose is to teach the science as it is currently understood. A semester of study of the weather and meteorology may result in a student's new realization that the god Thor does not cause thunder and lightning. We might even say, so much the better! But the science teacher's purpose is not to rid the student of such belief; his or her purpose is to teach the science about the weather."

C. S. Lewis
26. "Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations."

Friedrich Nietzsche
27. "I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time."
28. "God is dead: but considering the state Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown."
29. "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."

Stendhal
30. "Religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of the few."

Thomas Jefferson
31. "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
32. "The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyrrany known to the mind of man."

Dalai Lama
33. "This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."

Baron D'Holbach
34. "All religions are ancient monuments to superstition, ignorance, ferocity; and modern religions are only ancient follies."

Bertrand Russell
35. "Religion is based ... mainly upon fear ... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand . . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."

George Bernard Shaw
36. "The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

John McCarthy
37. "An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."

Susan B. Anthony
38. "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

William Archer
39. "I suggest that the anthropomorphic god-idea is not a harmless infirmity of human thought, but a very noxious fallacy, which is largely responsible for the calamities the world is at present enduring."

Aristotle
40. "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider godfearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."

Isaac Asimov
41. "Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."
42. "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."

Mikhail A. Bakunin
43. "All religions, with their gods, demigods, prophets, messiahs and saints, are the product of the fancy and credulity of men who have not yet reached the full development and complete personality of their intellectual powers."

Gene Roddenberry
44. "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."

Ambrose Bierce
45. "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
46. "Scriptures, n. The sacred books of our holy religion, as distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based."

Leon Lederman
47. "Physics isn't a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money."

Anaxagorus, ca. 475 BC
48. "Everything has a natural explanation. The moon is not a god but a great rock and the sun a hot rock."

Michel de Montaigne
49. "Man is certainly stark mad: he cannot make a worm, yet he will make gods by the dozen."

Denis Diderot
50. "The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The inerrancy is that the Bible doesn't affirm anything that is contrary to fact..

Of course it does, how blind can you be.

It says you can drink deadly poison and come to no harm, that is contrary to fact.

Nor does the entire chapter say anything about the "promised" signs only appearing to early church members.

Its funny how when i ask were there dinosaurs on the ark you answer the bible doesnt say there were, but will happily infer a fact from nothing when it suits your explanation of another problem.



The Bible is filled with errors and mistakes. Other ancient texts also have errors and mistakes, but this isn't a problem because people don't expect the authors of those texts to be perfect. The Bible, in contrast, is claimed by many believers to be infallible, inerrant, perfect, etc. Many base their entire religious ideology around the presumption that the Bible is free from errors or mistakes, so demonstrating the presence of errors is key to rebutting their religious claims.

Are there Errors & Mistakes in the Bible?
Of course there are errors and mistakes in the Bible; the only people who deny the presence of errors and mistakes are those with a strong ideological commitment to a belief that the Bible is somehow infallible, inerrant, or perfect. We can find errors and mistakes everywhere we look in the Bible because it's a collection of texts written centuries and millennia ago. Not all of the writers agreed and they were all ignorant of things humans have learned since then.

Bible Errors & Mistakes Overview - Scientific, Historical Errors & Mistakes in the Bible

The Test of the BibleThe Bible has a scientific test how to identify a true believer. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, Ch. No.16, Verse No.17 and 18 – It says that� �There will be signs for true believers and among the signs – In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents – And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed – And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.� This is a scientific test – In scientific terminology, it is known as the �confirmatory test� for a true Christian believer.
In the past 10 years of my life, I have personally interacted with thousands of Christians, including missionaries – I have not come across a single Christian, who has passed this confirmatory test of the Bible. I have not come across a single Christian who took poison – I have not come across any who took poison, and who has not died.And in scientific terminology, this is also called as the �falsification test� That means if a false person tries and does this test� takes poison, he will die. And a false person will not dare attempt this test – If you are not a true Christian believer, you will not dare attempt this test. Because you try and attempt the falsification test, you will fail. So a person who is not a true Christian believer, will never attempt this test.


The Bible also has a very good test for adultery-How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch.no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I”ll just say in brief. It says that� �The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel- And that is the bitter water �And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. You know today in the world, there are thousands of cases pending in different parts of the world, in different courts of law – only on the assumption that someone has alleged that a woman has committed adultery. I had read in the newspapers, and I came to know from the media, that the President of America Mr. Bill Clinton, he was involved in a sex scandal about years back. I wonder, that why did not the American court use this �bitter water test� for adultery? He would have gone scot-free immediately. Why did not the Christian missionaries of this country, use this bitter water test to bail out their President, immediately?

Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?

Does the Bible teach that the earth is flat?
Many if not most people are unaware that the Bible teaches the earth is flat. All standard Bible references, all standard mainstream non-fundamentalist Bible scholarship acknowledges this. Like on so many other topics, the Bible simply reflects the primitive and mistaken cosmology of the day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Leviticus 15:19'Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will remain in a state of menstrual pollution for seven days.'
Leviticus 15:19'Anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening.'
Leviticus 15:22'Anyone who touches anything she sat on...'
Leviticus 15:22'...must wash clothing and body, and will be unclean until evening.'
Leviticus 15:24'If a man goes so far as to have intercourse with her...'

Leviticus 15:24'...he will contract her menstrual pollution, and will be unclean for seven days. Any bed he lies on will be unclean.'
Leviticus 15:28'When she becomes clean of her discharge, she shall count off seven days. After that, she will be clean.'
Leviticus 15:29
'On the eighth day, she will take two doves or two young pigeons to the priest.'
Leviticus 15:30
'The priest will offer one of them as a sacrifice for sin and the other as a burnt sacrifice. In this way he makes atonement for her before Yahweh for her unclean discharge. '

The Brick Testament

Primative superstitious nonsense, and not much fun for the doves or pigeons either
 
When to stone your children as god commanded
The Brick Testament
When to stone your family in accordance with gods commands
The Brick Testament

Keeping gods laws
The Brick Testament

And heres what this biblical law looks like in real life
(warning the videos in this link contain real life examples of this biblical punishment. click at own risk. But for those who still can see no fault in this book and what god commands within its pages, perhaps you should have a look at a few examples of what it was that god was commanding.........)


Stoned To Death - Bing Videos
 
So.....where were we on the legitimacy of Jesus being a real person?

These threads make me laugh. They give random access( hey look! A squirrel) a whole new meaning. Interesting discussions though.



Probably the best I could hope for would be a clarification of the various views. I doubt anyone's mind will be changed.

Some people are convinced that the Bible is bunk. There are so many possibilities to consider in each of the apparent so called contradictions. Let's try just a few.

Critics argue that plants were created before the sun if you strictly follow the chronology of that account.Some say there was other light present before that, namely God, but there could have been other light.So we could allow for at least one theory of those events that works within that chronology. I don't feel as though it shoots a major hole in the truth of the accounts themselves.

So this is where Mike and I differ. He sees a contradiction and I see a condensed version of the creation story.

Let's try another. Take Mikes analogy of the scripture describing saints who can take up serpents and not be bitten and drink poisonous things.I think this is followed by casting out demons. I can see why reading some of this makes a skeptic even more skeptical.At face value, yes it seems weird. There was an account of Paul shaking off a serpent after a shipwreck and he wasn't harmed. In my thinking this passage conveys the idea of protection for the saints. This wasn't ever intended to be some kind of a litmus test. There are actually churches that falsely practice snake handling. This is a good example of oversimplification of the meaning in this case. The saints that were sent out at that time were protected in that way.

As to the Bible being a human book with a very human feel. If it were written by people with no intervention from any higher power, how could they have known and written about some of the things described?How can there be so many correlations between various scriptures?..there is a continuity that runs all the way through the book even though it had different authors, languages and time periods. The one thing about the book that is especially human is the fallible humanity of the greatest heroes with the exception of Jesus.

The cool thing is that an 8 year old can understand enough to make a decision. Knowing all the facts right down to the last detail isn't a prerequisite for entry. Knowledge can be added at a later time but it won't change the outcome.So how important is it to explain everything we read in all of the Bible? I think it's very important for the Christian to know as much as possible,but it's also good to know the demands are reasonable for everyone no matter where they are in life.

Approaching a book considered to be primarily spiritual and supernatural using only a scientific yard stick never works very well.The book seeks to tell a story not explain nuclear fission or quantum physics.
 
the scripture describing saints who can take up serpents and not be bitten and drink poisonous things..

It doesnt say saints its says believers. you are trying to change the context tut tut.

As long as you are baptized and believe you shall be able to take up snakes and drink deadly poison

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now I don't want to include the "fundamentalist"/Extremist Christians in this, but it has occurred to me that it is interesting to think that we can discuss the Bible and its contents freely and without fear of reprisals, conversely there are some "religions" where such discussion could result in serious "consequences".

It is my opinion that although not of the best character, king Harry (Henry VIII), did the world a favour when he broke away from "papal" control, as it resulted in things like the sciences flourishing. It also made way for the translation of the Bible into English, meaning that for the first time the average (English speaking) person could interpret what was written, for themselves.

The point I am attempting to make is that Christianity has "evolved" along with "society" to a point where it is fine to be openly questioning, sceptical and critical, which can only be a good thing, long gone are the days (in my country at least) where things like blasphemy could result in torture and execution. I wish this was the case worldwide, but it is not.
 
This form like Christianity has evolved into a general discussion on Christianity and Jesus. Therefore I would like to add my thoughts.
The first is to address is was Jesus Invented By The Romans? I have been listening to this kind of idea since "The Passover Plot. Here are some others:
Joseph Atwill - Caesar's Messiah, The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus
February 18, 2012
Joseph Atwill is an independent scholar who has set the world of New Testament scholarship in a new direction. In his book "Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus", Atwill outlines the series of events in Jesus' ministry that are parallels with the events of the battle campaign of Titus Flavius as recorded by Josephus Flavius in "War of the Jews."
Red Ice Radio - Joseph Atwill - Caesar's Messiah, The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus

Ralph Ellis He returns to discuss his latest book, Jesus, King of Edessa. Ralph will talk about the Edessa family, a royal family most have never heard about. Ralph has discovered that one of the princes of Edessa had the same names as Jesus. Was the conical Edessan crown also designed to cover and conceal an elongated royal cone-head? Ralph entertains ideas of ancient astronauts. Later, we’ll return to the motives of Joseph Flavius, a possible double agent. Ralph explains how the writings of Flavius have taken humanity on a diversion from gnosis.
Red Ice Radio - Ralph Ellis - Hour 1 - King of Edessa & The Omphalos Stone

Friedrich Nietzsche said that Christianity was the Jewish revenge on Rome for conquering Judah.

As Han has said Christianity has evolved. Here is one example:
Christians were persecuted in those early years because they refused to serve in the Roman army. But in the Edict of Milan in 313 AD Emperor Constantine decreed that Christianity would be tolerated and later, on his deathbed, he converted. By 480 AD you had to be a Christian to serve in the army. You might say that is where the church became a part of the Establishment – a position it occupied for centuries and to a great extent still does today.
Pacifism and Remembrance Day 2013

The book I like that gets us closer to the original idea of what it means to be a Christian is:
Speaking Christian Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power - And How They Can Be Restored
Marcus J. Borg
The first big word covered is "salvation" which has been totally warped as "going to heaven." Instead the church would do better by the gospel by relating it to "a transformed world of justice and peace." This capacious definition speaks to the yearnings of people of all ages and beliefs. As far as the word "God" goes, we need to replace the idea of God as punitive and threatening with that of God as gracious, loving, and compassionate.Spirituality & Practice: Book Review: Speaking Christian, by Marcus J. Borg
There is a discussion on the New Age and the Gnostics on guest suggestions for the Paracast so for those in interested in that subject I would suggest the following article:
Most channeled beings will claim to be affiliated with the (false) light-based “Spiritual Hierarchy” which includes “arch angels,” “ascended masters” and “positive ETs.” These channeled messages are a dime-a-thousand, and more keep pouring out every day. The dirty little secret is that these beings are beholden to the corrupt demiurge, and are waging a psychological battle on people that don’t want to be associated with any formal religious structure.
Why I Am No Longer a Light Worker - Transcending Duality | Ascension Help Blog
 
Plain and simple: sources of information need to be referenced ...
All that doesn't mean that the bible is factual. Plenty of fiction used the real names and places, things, and even people. Then there's mythology, which does the same thing, and then there's docufiction, which is fiction that presents factual circumstances in a dramatic manner that is meant to portray actual events, but which are clearly based on speculation and exaggeration. How much of each is in the Bible is a matter for biblical scholars, and the more objective the better. That's why I own a copy of Unger's Bible Dictionary, several versions of the bible on searchable CDs and a number of printed works. Lastly, in the end, written works do not constitute reasonable proof of anything other than problems involving pure logic. They should serve as resource material, not some kind of divine "last word" on whatever the subject.
 
Much of modern Christianity is based on the "feel" or sentiment of what Jesus stood for -- helping and loving others, selflessness, purity of soul, faithfulness etc. It seems that for many, whether the literal meanings of what's found in there are irrelevant, since it is accepted even among many scholars that allegory and metaphor are acceptable means of communicating this message. It isn't like we're a bunch of militant Muslims that will go nuts if someone questions the literal word -- some will, but it's the minority -- because enough of the Bible is.

In other words, the atheist dream of somehow dissolving Christianity must live on in the courts, because it won't anywhere else. And if that looks like it might come to pass, expect that some of the loving kindness aspects of the message might take a backseat for a spell.;)
 
Back
Top